The case against guns

[Collector1337]

http://www.guns.com/2012/08/01/texas-gu ... shoot-out/

Armed Citizen in TX Stops Shooting Spree and Saves Cop by Making 50+ Yard Shot With a Pistol



http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/police-w ... nse/nFB7g/

GA Woman Kills Would Be Rapist With .22 Pistol



These are the kinds of people the anti-gun collectivists would love to see die in honor of the collective.

Fuck that shit.

[Blind groper]

Ho hum.

More anecdotes.

[Tero]

Stupid gun rally in RI will not get a permit.

http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news ... tate-house

[Blind groper]

And I say you're lying. I've encountered many people who claim to be "pacifists" ............................

Make it a knife, or a baseball bat then. The core question is whether or not you would use deadly physical force in defense of your loved ones.

First, Seth, I have not described myself as a pacifist. That is your word. I have described myself as a semi-pacifist, in that I believe that violence should only be used as an absolute last resort. As opposed to certain gun nutters, who appear to be actively looking for an excuse, any excuse, to shoot someone dead.

What I stand for in this discussion, though, is the belief that fewer guns, especially fewer hand guns, means fewer murders. When lots of hand guns are distributed, the murder rate goes up. As in the USA. When hand guns are removed from circulation, as in other OECD nations, and most especially in Japan, the murder rate plummets. The numbers showing this are very clear cut.

So, as a semi pacifist, would I defend my loved ones? Of course I would, using whatever means is available. So what? That does not mean I support guns. In fact, I know damn well that my loved ones are at far lower risk of harm in a society with as few guns as possible.

[Blind groper]

And I say you're lying. I've encountered many people who claim to be "pacifists" ............................

Make it a knife, or a baseball bat then. The core question is whether or not you would use deadly physical force in defense of your loved ones.

First, Seth, I have not described myself as a pacifist. That is your word. I have described myself as a semi-pacifist, in that I believe that violence should only be used as an absolute last resort. As opposed to certain gun nutters, who appear to be actively looking for an excuse, any excuse, to shoot someone dead.

What I stand for in this discussion, though, is the belief that fewer guns, especially fewer hand guns, means fewer murders. When lots of hand guns are distributed, the murder rate goes up. As in the USA. When hand guns are removed from circulation, as in other OECD nations, and most especially in Japan, the murder rate plummets. The numbers showing this are very clear cut.

So, as a semi pacifist, would I defend my loved ones? Of course I would, using whatever means is available. So what? That does not mean I support guns. In fact, I know damn well that my loved ones are at far lower risk of harm in a society with as few guns as possible.

[Seth]

And I say you're lying. I've encountered many people who claim to be "pacifists" ............................

Make it a knife, or a baseball bat then. The core question is whether or not you would use deadly physical force in defense of your loved ones.

First, Seth, I have not described myself as a pacifist. That is your word. I have described myself as a semi-pacifist, in that I believe that violence should only be used as an absolute last resort. As opposed to certain gun nutters, who appear to be actively looking for an excuse, any excuse, to shoot someone dead.

If that's what you think, then you're a bigger idiot than I thought you were. Nobody has suggested any such thing other than you, while creating strawman and red herring arguments. I've been extremely careful to always qualify my statements as to when deadly force is authorized in compliance with the law.

So, once again you're just making shit up.

What I stand for in this discussion, though, is the belief that fewer guns, especially fewer hand guns, means fewer murders.

Wrong. NO guns might mean fewer murders, but since it's impossible to eliminate all guns, what you suggest is just so much inane bilge.

When lots of hand guns are distributed, the murder rate goes up. As in the USA. When hand guns are removed from circulation, as in other OECD nations, and most especially in Japan, the murder rate plummets. The numbers showing this are very clear cut.

It's not nearly that simple, but what is simple is the fact that in the US, owning a handgun for self defense is a constitutional right that shall not be infringed, so it doesn't matter what you think, our law forbids our government to take our arms.

So, as a semi pacifist, would I defend my loved ones? Of course I would, using whatever means is available. So what? That does not mean I support guns. In fact, I know damn well that my loved ones are at far lower risk of harm in a society with as few guns as possible.

That makes you a gross hypocrite because while YOU get to make the decision what tools YOU want or need to use to defend yourself, you do NOT have the moral authority, or the legal authority, to tell ANYONE ELSE what they may possess by way of defensive armament unless and until they misuse their arms.

It's just that simple.

[Seth]

Whoops, looks like your stupid argument is even more ignorant that it was. Yep, more guns, less crime:

Crime
Revealing New Statistics Seem to Debunk Key Claim Made by Gun Control Advocates
May. 7, 2013 4:29pm Jason Howerton

167
1.5K
19
3
0

Reports Show Gun Homicides Down Dramatically Since 1990s

Credit: AFP/Getty Images

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — Gun homicides have dropped steeply in the United States since their peak in 1993, a pair of reports released Tuesday showed, adding fuel to Congress’ battle over whether to tighten restrictions on firearms. The findings throw cold water on one of the main arguments made by gun control advocates, that more firearms regulations are needed because gun violence is spiraling out of control.

A study released Tuesday by the government’s Bureau of Justice Statistics found that gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. That’s a 39 percent reduction.

Another report by the private Pew Research Center found a similar decline by looking at the rate of gun homicides, which compares the number of killings to the size of the country’s population. It found that the number of gun homicides per 100,000 people fell from 7 in 1993 to 3.6 in 2010, a drop of 49 percent.

Both reports also found the rate of non-fatal crimes involving guns was also down by around 70 percent over that period.

But perhaps because of the intense publicity generated by recent mass shootings such as the December massacre of 20 school children and six educators in Newtown, Conn., the public seems to have largely not noticed the reductions in gun violence, the Pew study shows.

The non-partisan group said a poll it conducted in March showed that 56 percent of people believe the number of gun crimes is higher than it was two decades ago. Only 12 percent said they think the number of gun crimes is lower, while the rest said they think it remained the same or didn’t know.
Reports Show Gun Homicides Down Dramatically Since 1990s

First Lady Michelle Obama. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

That may have something to do with the dramatic anti-gun rhetoric coming from anti-gun advocates. First Lady Michelle Obama last week told students at a Chicago high school that kids across the nation “wake up and wonder whether they’re going to make it out of school alive” because of guns.

In March, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) told MSNBC that so-called “assault weapons” were claiming the lives of “millions of kids.” Of course the statement is incorrect, but it was such an inaccurate statement it boggles the mind how he came up with that figure.

In 2011, the total number of gun homicides in the U.S. was 8,583. Using the 2011 total gun-related murder rate, it would take more than 116 years for one million people to be killed by a firearm.

These are just a few of the many example when gun control advocates have resorted to baseless emotional arguments to demonize guns and exaggerate the effect of gun violence. Now, 8,583 gun murders every year is 8,583 too many. However, we can’t have an honest debate about gun violence if we aren’t holding to the truth.

The trend in firearm-related homicides is part of a broad nationwide decline in violent crime over past two decades, including incidents not involving firearms.

But handguns play a major role in violent crime. The Justice study said that in 2011, about 70 percent of all homicides were committed with a firearm, mainly a handgun.

The data was released three weeks after the Senate rejected an effort by gun control supporters to broaden the requirement for federal background checks for more firearms purchases. Senate Democratic leaders have pledged to hold that vote again, and gun control advocates have been raising public pressure on senators who voted “no” in hopes they will change their minds.

Gun rights advocates have argued that people are safer when they are allowed to own and carry guns. Those supporting gun control say that with more background checks, gun violence would drop because more criminals and mentally unstable people would be prevented from getting weapons.

TheBlaze on Tuesday reported on some interesting FBI statistics that revealed California had the most gun murders in 2011 and a high gun murder rate, despite being named the state with the strongest gun control laws by the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence that same year.

Additionally, Washington, D.C., another state with strong gun regulations, topped the 201 list for total gun murder rate with 12 homicides per 100,000 people.

[Blind groper]

Seth

You must have a very short memory.
We have discussed the drop in violent crime before. The key point is that it is a global phenomenon. Every nation has a falling violent crime rate. The USA is no different. This reduction is unrelated to number of guns, since it is happening everywhere.

[Blind groper]

That makes you a gross hypocrite because while YOU get to make the decision what tools YOU want or need to use to defend yourself, you do NOT have the moral authority, or the legal authority, to tell ANYONE ELSE what they may possess by way of defensive armament unless and until they misuse their arms.

.

If and when good gun control in America ever happens, it will have nothing to do with me, but will be the result of the USA finally managing to get wise and non corrupt people into government. So, on a discussion forum I will continue to express my views and post good data.

[Collector1337]

That makes you a gross hypocrite because while YOU get to make the decision what tools YOU want or need to use to defend yourself, you do NOT have the moral authority, or the legal authority, to tell ANYONE ELSE what they may possess by way of defensive armament unless and until they misuse their arms.

.

If and when good gun control in America ever happens, it will have nothing to do with me, but will be the result of the USA finally managing to get wise and non corrupt people into government. So, on a discussion forum I will continue to express my views and post good data.

When the "non corrupt" take your rights away, then they are the corrupt. You are severely confused. Why would the corrupt want me to have guns and individual liberty? Do you see how little sense that makes?

[JimC]

That makes you a gross hypocrite because while YOU get to make the decision what tools YOU want or need to use to defend yourself, you do NOT have the moral authority, or the legal authority, to tell ANYONE ELSE what they may possess by way of defensive armament unless and until they misuse their arms.

.

If and when good gun control in America ever happens, it will have nothing to do with me, but will be the result of the USA finally managing to get wise and non corrupt people into government. So, on a discussion forum I will continue to express my views and post good data.

When the "non corrupt" take your rights away, then they are the corrupt. You are severely confused. Why would the corrupt want me to have guns and individual liberty? Do you see how little sense that makes?

You can shove your paranoid fantasies where the sun don't shine...

[Collector1337]

That makes you a gross hypocrite because while YOU get to make the decision what tools YOU want or need to use to defend yourself, you do NOT have the moral authority, or the legal authority, to tell ANYONE ELSE what they may possess by way of defensive armament unless and until they misuse their arms.

.

If and when good gun control in America ever happens, it will have nothing to do with me, but will be the result of the USA finally managing to get wise and non corrupt people into government. So, on a discussion forum I will continue to express my views and post good data.

When the "non corrupt" take your rights away, then they are the corrupt. You are severely confused. Why would the corrupt want me to have guns and individual liberty? Do you see how little sense that makes?

You can shove your paranoid fantasies where the sun don't shine...

Huh?

I asked a perfectly valid question. Why would those who are corrupt and seek to oppress me, let me have guns and individual liberty?

[JimC]

You have a paranoid fantasy about being oppressed by corrupt people or shadowy organisations, and heroically defending yourself by using your guns...

Simply fucking weird to 99.9% of the world...

[Rum]

I think we have to accept the sincerely held views of the gun ownership looneys. Especially the uncorrupted gun lobby and gun makers.

[Collector1337]

You have a paranoid fantasy about being oppressed by corrupt people or shadowy organisations, and heroically defending yourself by using your guns...

Simply fucking weird to 99.9% of the world...

So, I take it you're not going to answer my question.

What are the goals of the "corrupt" in America who defend our right to bear arms?